Star Trek has been both a TV series and a film series over the decades, but what do you think Star Trek works better as, a TV series or a film series?

CorporalCaptain

February 1 2014 12:13 AM

Re: Is Star Trek better as a TV series or a film series?

TV.

Plomeek Broth

February 1 2014 12:17 AM

Re: Is Star Trek better as a TV series or a film series?

TV and it's not even close.

There were some excellent TOS films.

However when they had some TNG actors like McFadden sporting the plasma rifle weapons it became absurd. Trek is action hero fodder! So the drooling movie going public can understand and enjoy the experience.

I like both formats and don't think one is inherently better than the other where Trek is concerned.

dub

February 1 2014 01:18 AM

Re: Is Star Trek better as a TV series or a film series?

For me, TOS worked better in the films (not including nuTrek).

Overall, TNG worked better for me on TV (apart from First Contact which I loved), but I think if they instead took a decade or so break between TV and film and had new writers/producers at that point, their film outings could have been truly epic. Who knows.

DS9 worked very well for television, but I believe it could have also worked nicely as a semi-serial film series. Loved what we got with the TV series though.

Again, my opinion. :)

T'Girl

February 1 2014 01:19 AM

Re: Is Star Trek better as a TV series or a film series?

TV.

:)

Ro_Laren

February 1 2014 01:38 AM

Re: Is Star Trek better as a TV series or a film series?

TV! But part of the reason that I vote for TV Trek is that there are so many more hours of TV Trek vs. movie Trek. Plus, Abrams hasn't been involved in TV Trek!

sonak

February 1 2014 01:39 AM

Re: Is Star Trek better as a TV series or a film series?

I'd say the quality-to-crap ratio was pretty similar in both formats. Obviously if you enjoy Trek for the action, you'll likely prefer the movies, since the shows could often be very talky.

Shawnster

February 1 2014 02:01 AM

Re: Is Star Trek better as a TV series or a film series?

TV.

As we see with nuTrek, the movie going audience wants high action movies heavy with special effects. While that's fine for a a 2 hour movie, Star Trek has always been so much more than "just" high action. The full spectrum of Star Trek from action to cerebral to morality plays can only fully be expressed in a weekly TV series.

dub

February 1 2014 02:08 AM

Re: Is Star Trek better as a TV series or a film series?

come to think of it, it's hard to find decent film OR television these days. Or is it that I'm getting old and jaded? :/

I am not Spock

February 1 2014 02:09 AM

Re: Is Star Trek better as a TV series or a film series?

TV. You can do more impressive special effects on a movie budget, but television is a better medium for developing characters over a long period of time. Aside from DS9 and the latter half of Enterprise, Trek mostly went for stand alone episodes instead of character development. But TV has the POTENTIAL to show deeper character arcs.

Trek on film can be entertaining. But I think it's on television where it really can be the best it can.

The Overlord

February 1 2014 02:51 AM

Re: Is Star Trek better as a TV series or a film series?

Quote:

dub wrote:
(Post 9192724)

come to think of it, it's hard to find decent film OR television these days. Or is it that I'm getting old and jaded? :/

Really, people say this the golden of television, with shows like Mad Men, Boardwalk Empire, Breaking Bad, Game of thrones, Justified, etc. I think this the best TV had been, ever. I think you have more quality TV now, then in the past.

TheSubCommander

February 1 2014 05:40 AM

Re: Is Star Trek better as a TV series or a film series?

TV series. No Contest.

Star Trek 1-6 worked well because we already had the TV series. Had we not had the series, there wouldn't have been much point to them. We were catching up characters of a series that had been cancelled unceremoniously a decade prior.

Star Trek 2009, was a good blockbuster movie that I really enjoyed, but for me, is missing that essence that TOS had.

Star Trek ID, for me at least, was a C- to a D+ movie. I really didn't care or it, and feel it was really just too much of a homage movie to be taken as anything more than that.

J. Allen

February 1 2014 07:57 AM

Re: Is Star Trek better as a TV series or a film series?

Definitely as a TV series. I love the new Star Trek movies, and I think J.J. Abrams has done a magnificent job of making some fun and exciting Star Trek, but the small screen is where it really belongs, as well as an occasional movie to hammer out some idea.

On the small screen, you can take your time, over the course of a couple of episodes, a couple of seasons even, building up to something great and awe-inspiring. On the big screen, you have about a 120 minute block to go from scratch to conclusion, and make it all work. That's a tight fit, and a lot gets left on the cutting room floor because of it.

TV is where Star Trek started, and I think that's where it works best. Just my two bits.